|
Maluco Marinero posted:Umm, that's great and all, but where in the movie's text or subtext does this 'world's greatest martial artist' get established? 20 years of crimefighting. The fact that Batman takes on two dozen armed hostiles simultaneously. Since Jason Todd is a thing you can reasonably assume some other "classic" Batman stories may have happened. Maluco Marinero posted:Some (and you) seem to want to assume the authorial intent was that Batman and Superman decided they wouldn't preserve life or avoid collateral damage, rather than that they couldn't. You're totally 100% right. When I asked if Batman started to not care about killing people as a direct result of Superman's arrival aka the first 10 or so minutes of BvS, the answer I received was "Yes"
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Whether or not Batman kills in BvS doesn't matter. You can know this because the text doesn't bring it up. The only thing that matters to the narrative is that Batman is uncharacteristically brutal in the way he disposes of his opponents. It could mean killing, or it could mean horribly maiming them. If Zack Snyder wanted to make a film about Batman killing, he would've made a film about Batman killing. You've accepted that Superman could fly. Is it really stretching it that much to accept Batman doesn't kill? I feel you're lashing out at the movie when your lack of imagination, your refusal to suspend your disbelief just a bit longer, is really the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:You're totally 100% right. When I asked if Batman started to not care about killing people as a direct result of Superman's arrival aka the first 10 or so minutes of BvS, the answer I received was "Yes" Which is one interpretation. The people arguing contra to you are not a monolithic block. This discussion only exists because there is room for interpretation of capabilities and intent of the characters. I haven't fully made up my mind yet, but it sure as poo poo isn't "Batman does/doesn't kill therefore this is flawed.". Why Batman's methods are changing, and how they changed is important to the interpretation. Because he's freaked out about Superman is only one aspect of it. edit: SolidSnakesBandana posted:20 years of crimefighting. The fact that Batman takes on two dozen armed hostiles simultaneously. Since Jason Todd is a thing you can reasonably assume some other "classic" Batman stories may have happened. Reasonably assume is a bit of a reach. Just because 'classic' Batman stories have happened doesn't necessarily mean a thing. It's the baggage you've brought to the table and assumed plays out a certain way. Maluco Marinero fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
quote:You've accepted that Superman could fly. Is it really stretching it that much to accept Batman doesn't kill? Honestly, it actually is a lot easier for me to accept a man can fly than it is for me to believe a man can survive a strafing run in which the SUV he's in is blown up by gatling guns. E: Batling guns RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:That you think justice can only be legally sanctioned is a little disturbing. Like returning a runaway slave. Conversely, it's fine for batman to wander around assaulting people and manufacturing cases for the prosecution as long as he (and the reader) are disgusted by their actions. Notwithstanding that one of the stock openings to a Batman/Spider-Man story is them tarzaning away from some bound and beaten people, their crimes left totally off panel. In which context their preferred modes of transport ( brachiating from building to building on artificial vines) is notable - they are the kings of the urban jungle, and all the apes and animals are under their jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Conversely, it's fine for batman to wander around assaulting people and manufacturing cases for the prosecution as long as he (and the reader) are disgusted by their actions. Notwithstanding that one of the stock openings to a Batman/Spider-Man story is them tarzaning away from some bound and beaten people, their crimes left totally off panel. In which context their preferred modes of transport ( brachiating from building to building on artificial vines) is notable - they are the kings of the urban jungle, and all the apes and animals are under their jurisdiction. In the (batman) movies he always drives away not grapple...or in Batman '89 he just tumbles down buildings, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:If Zack Snyder wanted to make a film about Batman killing, he would've made a film about Batman killing. RBA Starblade posted:Honestly, it actually is a lot easier for me to accept a man can fly than it is for me to believe a man can survive a strafing run in which the SUV he's in is blown up by gatling guns. I'm sure these guys are fine. http://i.imgur.com/ous3Yoy.gifv http://i.imgur.com/6U2wzEW.gifv
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm sure these guys are fine. Comic book logic would dictate that these people aren't dead unless their bodies are shown. Again, however, I will say that this debate is missing the forest for the trees. It's arguing about a detail that the text itself considers insignificant, instead of looking at it in its broader context. Batman kills if you want him to. But, if you don't, the movie is vague enough that you can argue he doesn't. Either way, it has no significant effect on the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:Comic book logic To be clear, those images are from a movie. A movie that depicts a person's head being crushed between two sheets of metal by a speeding car. This is not "vague." Their bodies are shown. Specifically, their bodies are shown being crushed and engulfed in an explosion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:To be clear, those images are from a movie. A movie that depicts a person's head being crushed between two sheets of metal by a speeding car. This is not "vague." Their bodies are shown. Specifically, their bodies are shown being crushed and engulfed in an explosion. We can infer from him being Batman that he doesn't kill people. Just like we can infer from him being active for 20-ish years that he is literally the greatest martial artist that ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:When I asked if Batman started to not care about killing people as a direct result of Superman's arrival aka the first 10 or so minutes of BvS, the answer I received was "Yes" You're fixating on all the wrong things, and it's only going to lead you to endless confusion and frustration. Batman has never had a 'no killing rule' and, even if he were to start, such a rule would have no legal or ethical basis. The character follows a 'no executions' rule, and it's a purely personal preference. Like not smoking. And why does Batman have this personal preference? The films themselves actually provide very clear and basic explanations: 1) Wayne wants to impress Rachel. Rachel hates guns because she's a liberal - only carrying a taser for self-defense. Wayne believes that, if he doesn't use guns, Rachel will love him. 2) Wayne is committed to being "child friendly": there are numerous scenes of him going out of his way to impress children. And of course, Wayne himself is a manchild. He attaches big canons to his motorcycle because that type of violence is awesome!!! ... and impersonal. 3) In a related way, Wayne follows MPAA logic. He's trying to keep things PG 13: bloodless, out of sight. 4) Wayne is secretly afraid of accomplishing too much. He keeps his vigilantism very low-level, not wanting to draw attention to himself. When organized groups start copying him, he beats them up too. Wayne doesn't really want to change society; he has no cause that he's actually prepared to kill for (in the sense that "killing is making a choice!"). And all of those things are destabilized in this film. It's even rated R.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Anthony Hopkins spotted on Thor 3 set. Goodbye Mr Logan... https://twitter.com/RealHughJackman/status/767684761938714624
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
I'm really excited for Thor 3, this is weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
What was the thread consensus on Taika getting Thor3?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Anthony Hopkins spotted on Thor 3 set. He will always be the huge jacked man to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:What was the thread consensus on Taika getting Thor3?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
I just hope if he hits it big it doesn't preclude him from doing the kind of small, quirky movies he's been doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Having again watched the car chase scene depicted by the above gifs, Batman executes the gently caress out of those people. And it's all pointless because he puts a tracker on their truck right before he executes them. Since he loses their trail thanks to Superman's interference, and he ended up using the tracker anyway, there's not a real reason for him to have executed those guys. Also Batman hates guns because his parents were killed by a gun. Hell, Batman Beyond starts with Bruce giving up the mantle because he was placed in a position where he was forced to use a gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Having again watched the car chase scene depicted by the above gifs, Batman executes the gently caress out of those people. And it's all pointless because he puts a tracker on their truck right before he executes them. Since he loses their trail thanks to Superman's interference, and he ended up using the tracker anyway, there's not a real reason for him to have executed those guys. Do you have this issue with Die Hard or Raiders of the Lost Ark? SolidSnakesBandana posted:Also Batman hates guns because his parents were killed by a gun. Hell, Batman Beyond starts with Bruce giving up the mantle because he was placed in a position where he was forced to use a gun. Actually he doesn't really seem to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Next time he should just have a conversation with the PMCs. They are such a cowardly and superstitious lot they might just fall over and die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Batman's greatest villain is probably Brave Skeptic, who is neither cowardly or superstitious. He would be played by Neil Degrasse Tyson."Actually what you are calling a Bat Plane is using rotors and the wings do not provide the lift. It would be more accurate to call this a Bat gyrocopter." greatn fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Next time he should just have a conversation with the PMCs. They are such a cowardly and superstitious lot they might just fall over and die. I sincerely hope that Batman's big moment in the Justice League movie is a slow mo shot of him firing two grenade launchers. Maybe at Evil Superman or a demon whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Actually he doesn't really seem to. He takes up the mantle of backseat driver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:He takes up the mantle of backseat driver. Truly a superstitious and cowardly lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
I always thought Batman's "no killing" thing was just shorthand for "no executions".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:I'm really excited for Thor 3, this is weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The point of the film is that Bruce forgives his father and also stops acting like a child - revelling in his powerlessness, acting out against 'God'. He decides to honour his father by becoming a hero again. TetsuoTW posted:You mean all those dudes he leaves "unconscious" with "30 bpm" heart rates? Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Batman's just poo poo at Counter Strike & made up a 'code' so nobody'd call him out
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What about Batman, going forward from joining forces with Superman, marks him as a fascist? The formation of a private army, for one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Having again watched the car chase scene depicted by the above gifs, Batman executes the gently caress out of those people. And it's all pointless because he puts a tracker on their truck right before he executes them. It's also pointless for him to beat up low-level criminals for the generic purpose of "stopping crime" but he does it anyway. Because Batman is a disturbed guy. Anyway it's not really an execution if you wait for them to try to kill you, which he does. That's the modus operandi of BvS Batman: he gives you enough rope to hang yourself with. If those mercs had thrown down their weapons and run away, they would have been fine. But Batman wants them to fight back so he can use his cool toys, same reason he didn't strafe the warehouse with his Batpod machine guns. That's no fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Batfleck should just carry around a rifle and shoot everyone that gets in his way. gently caress martial arts. Drop the pretense. Kill kill kill!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Batfleck should just carry around a rifle and shoot everyone that gets in his way. gently caress martial arts. Drop the pretense. Kill kill kill! I've got good news - there's a dream scene made especially for you in Batman v Superman! Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Batfleck should just carry around a rifle and shoot everyone that gets in his way. gently caress martial arts. Drop the pretense. Kill kill kill!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
I like that Batman flies around his city in a jetfighter at night turning criminals into hamburger with his JETFIGHTER AEROPLANE THAT HE FLIES AROUND AT NIGHT
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
I just realized that in addition to being appropriate for the animation thread, Peanuts technically qualifies for comic movie thread as well. I'm watching You're in Love, Charlie Brown, and I think one of the greatest strengths of the early TV specials is that even though I'm conscious that Schultz basically ended up recycling a lot of his dailies material into the scripts, the effect of not having them in a serialized fashion really magnifies just how comically depressing Charlie Brown's life is. Just watch the part where he's sitting on the bench during lunch - it's just a monologue of self-hatred. It makes you wonder what if an adaptation of American Splendor was done more in the style of classic Peanuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Should Charlie Brown kill, or should Charlie Brown not kill?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Should Charlie Brown kill, or should Charlie Brown not kill? This is a song two little girls sing after finding out Charlie Brown is in love: Poor little Charlie Brown-na-na-na No one could love that frown-na-na-na Who would love you? No one, that's who! Your face is too darn round-na-na-na
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Should Charlie Brown kill, or should Charlie Brown not kill? Only Lucy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Only Lucy. He could never kill Lucy, what is Charlie Brown without Lucy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Re-watching Man of Steel. Movie starts very strong, collapses when it starts to form a plot. I think it gets worse every time it's seen again. Also what a terrible decision to have Lois learn his identity immediately. The two person love-triangle is one of the most interesting aspects of the Superman mythos. It's definitely a more interesting film than BvS I think it's failings had more artistic aspirations behind them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:52
|
|
